DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

disallowance of ₹ 81,405/- out of expenses. No addition was made towards excess investments given in the TEP. We have deleted the addition of ₹4.00 lakh in an earlier para by holding the same as not sustainable for the year under consideration. 6. Section 147 of the Act provides that: “If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

disallowance of ₹ 81,405/- out of expenses. No addition was made towards excess investments given in the TEP. We have deleted the addition of ₹4.00 lakh in an earlier para by holding the same as not sustainable for the year under consideration. 6. Section 147 of the Act provides that: “If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY OXYGEN CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) in accordance with the decision of the Special Bench (supra) 9. The second and last issue in the appeal of the Revenue is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer does not have any relevant circumstances for referring the matter to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n54 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \nfor allocation of notional expenditure. The deductions contemplated are \nthe

HDFC BANK LIMITED( AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld.\nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on\npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income.\nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope\n\n53\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld.\nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on\npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income.\nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope\n53\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n53 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n53 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance u/s.36(1)(viii) and 14A on the interest\ncomponent relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend\nincome have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of\nsuch interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations\nand findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt\nelaborately in the above paragraphs

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Section \n36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section \nwithout making any distinction between reserve created before the \namendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section \neffective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By \nreferring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the \nspecial reserve created and maintained

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED (MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below:\n\nSr

disallowance u/s.36(1)(viii) and 14A on the interest \ncomponent relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend \nincome have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of \nsuch interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations \nand findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt \nelaborately in the above paragraphs

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground so raised for Assessment \nYear 2004-05 is dismissed as infructuous

disallowed \nin the computation of total income, it was claimed as a deduction by \n\n50 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\nway of notes forming part of the same. There is no discussion with \nrespect to this issue in the assessment order for AY 2002-03. However, \nld. CIT(A) upheld

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

disallowance u/s.36(1)(viii) and 14A on the interest \ncomponent relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend \nincome have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of \nsuch interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations \nand findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt \nelaborately in the above paragraphs

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\n| Sr

disallowance u/s.36(1)(viii) and 14A on the interest \ncomponent relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend \nincome have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of \nsuch interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations \nand findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt \nelaborately in the above paragraphs